Statement of
On The
AES SPARROWS POINT LNG, LLC
Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C.
Proposal For A
Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal
And
Natural Gas Pipeline Facility
Submitted To The
Cooperating Agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Issued: April 2008
Docket
Nos. CPO7-62-000, CPO7-63-000, CPO7-64-000, CPO7-65-000
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) No. CENAB-OP-RMN (2007-01644-M16)
Patapsco High School Auditorium
Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction
My name is Norris
McDonald and I am the founder and president of the African American
Environmentalist Association (AAEA).
This written statement is being submitted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) to provide our views on environmental issues
related to the Sparrows Point Project (SPP), a proposed liquefied natural gas
(LNG) import facility and gas pipeline. The African American Environmentalist
Association supports LNG terminals because of the need for additional natural
gas for electricity generation.
However, we will withhold a position on this project until the relevant
issues are included in a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and
community concerns have been properly addressed.
AAEA was founded in
1985 and is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the
environment, promoting the efficient use of natural resources, enhancing human,
animal and plant ecologies and increasing African American participation in the
environmental movement. AAEA’s national headquarters is in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area. We have chapters nationwide and members worldwide.
The Sparrows Point
Project will consist of an onshore LNG import and storage terminal and an
87-mile natural gas pipeline. Our
comments today will address Turner Station.
Environmental Justice
The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) being used for this public meeting is
woefully inadequate in addressing the environmental justice issues related to
the LNG proposal. FERC failed to,
“…assess potential impacts on the...human environment that would result from
the implementation of the proposed actions.”
The DEIS identified potential environmental justice impacts but did not
assess the impacts. The DEIS states
that, “AES addressed these concerns through the identification of environmental
justice areas in the vicinity of the proposed Project.” There is nothing in the DEIS showing that
AES assessed environment justice issues.
The outreach by AES via open house meetings, project updates, tours and learning
opportunities does not seem to have led to an adequate assessment. We are
deeply concerned that the environmental justice issues were not assessed in the
DEIS and they should be thoroughly assessed and included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
There are numerous environmental
justice issues that need to be assessed:
1)
An additional source of
air pollution in the local area.
2)
An additional source of
water pollution in the local area.
3)
Relocation and/or
compensation for Turner Station residents.
4)
Minority business
opportunities related to the proposed project.
5)
Arrangements to assist
with any increases in insurance premiums.
6)
Arrangements for
community amenities
7)
Examining partnership
agreements with area businesses to expand community mitigation and/or
relocation.
Again, simply
identifying the community and their status as a minority neighborhood and their
income status is not sufficient to assess the potential impacts. Moreover, potential impacts of the SPP
should be considered within the context of the additional pollution the
projects represents. To do this, the
other pollution sources in the vicinity need to be identified and then a
cumulative assessment needs to be conducted.
The basic point being that the SPP alone might not represent a
significant pollution threat, but its addition to other sites currently
impacting this community might then represent a threat. Typically in environmental justice, it is
not just one facility that poses a threat, but a number of facilities in
combination that represent the threat. This
is our assessment and is the basis for requesting mitigation and/or relocation
assistance.
Our assessment would
appear to counter the DEIS contention that:
“The proposed development at the terminal site is compatible and consistent with existing use and long-range plans identified for the area…Similarly, construction and operation of the terminal facility would have no negative impacts on the community redevelopment and revitalization concepts included in the Turner Station Community Conservation Plan.”
The Turner Station Community Conservation Plan did not include a
comprehensive environmental justice assessment. Neither did the Dundalk, A Second Century Vision
document. Although the DEIS states,
“increased employment associated with the construction and operation of the
terminal would benefit the communities economically,” this in no way
ameliorates the cumulative impacts of pollution affecting the residents of
Turner Station.
AES can litigate its
way to approval of this project There
are no laws that can stop the project.
AES recently won a court fight that will help in getting approval for
the project.
On May 19th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and held that a Baltimore County Council zoning amendment prohibiting the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in previously designated Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas in Baltimore County was preempted by the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In 2005, Congress amended the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to clarify the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over LNG terminal siting. Section 311(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct 2005) granted FERC the “exclusive authority” to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal. Section 311(d), however, provides that nothing in the NGA affects “the rights of States” under the CZMA, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (Van Ness Feldman Law Firm)
We appeal to their sense of corporate responsibility to assist a
community in need. We hope FERC will
expand the scope of the environmental justice assessment and consider
recommending the adoption of the mitigation measures that we have recommended.
The fate of the
pipeline proposal is a different matter from the facility. There are numerous state obstacles that can
negatively affect the approval of the pipeline. Although, according to the
DEIS, “the proposed pipeline would not result in disproportionately adverse
human impacts or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities,”
disrespecting and disregarding the appeals of the residents of Turner Station
could lead residents and others to pursue obstruction by working to block the
pipeline. The LNG facility will be
crippled if the pipeline is not constructed.
Turner’s Station has
a perfect storm of pollution sources surrounding it. There is a landfill to the north, power plant to the south, steel
plant (and proposed LNG facility) to the east, and high power lines and
chromium pollution to the west. We
believe that humans should not live in such a polluted industrial zone. However, some residents are loyal to that
geographical location.
We are also very
concerned that certain representations were made by AES that have been
rescinded by the company. Our contacts
with community representatives indicate that the company has completely backed
out of offers of assistance to Turner Station.
We hope that AES, possibly in partnership with other area companies,
will provide a written agreement to provide the items we recommend below.
AAEA made the recommendation below at the 2006 public
meeting and we stand by those recommendations today:
1.
AES should purchase the homes or pay homeowners and businesses near the
exclusion zone a reasonable fee.
Another alternative would be building a relocation community.
2.
AES should pay for any increase in homeowners and business owners’
insurance premiums near the facility for those choosing the fee.
3.
AES should provide 51 percent minority ownership in the Mid-Atlantic
Express, LLC, the proposed owner of the 87-mile pipeline. Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC is a regulated project company formed
by The AES Corporation to own and operate the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline.
4.
If the community is not relocated, then AES should build a
state-of-the-art recreation and computer facility similar to the Fed Ex Field
facility in Landover, Maryland.
5.
AES should provide college scholarships to students.
We strongly suggest that such a path is good
business and could go far in preventing delays, uncertainty and litigation for
this project. AES could show
environmental justice leadership by partnering with the other local facilities
to negotiate an appropriate mitigation settlement to this a vulnerable
community.